Carla King (letter, June 2) is wrong suggesting that the teens in Oregon [who tackled and subdued the suspect in a school shooting] have something to show the police [about non-lethal methods]. I also disagree that "one good thing could come out of the recent shooting."

Those teens who were able to subdue the shooter in Oregon did so at great personal risk to themselves. One student said he heard the gun click and believed it was jammed before he acted. He acted bravely, but at least he had the good sense to wait until an opportunity presented itself.

The police act reasonably when they wound a dangerous armed criminal - I don't believe their intent is always to kill. In most cases the police are trying to disable a shooter to protect those at risk, be it the officers themselves or other people.

I would much rather hear about a dead shooter than an additional victim shot while police spent time trying to subdue a dangerously armed criminal in a non-lethal manner.

This is not to say that officers are not human and do not err. They make mistakes in judgment as you or I could. And in the dangerous situations these officers place themselves in every day, more often than not they make the right choice.

None of this should take away from the San Francisco shooting of a teenage girl who was in a car with two suspects. That tragic accident was most definitely a mistake. D.L. Johnson San Francisco

I am shocked that Carla King, and probably others, believe that teen-agers can teach the police skills in subduing armed killers. These brave young people did what they did to save their own lives as well as others who were in danger. They had no choice but to put themselves in harm's way.

What would King have written had these teen-agers been killed performing their brave deeds?

She also writes that police "so frequently kill people instead of disabling them." I do not read that this happens so frequently. The police are put in harm's way very often. If the object is to end a threat to the police officer or to an innocent third party, there may be no choice but to kill.

If we disarm the police we will be less powerful to defend ourselves. Perhaps we should also disarm the armed forces. When a thug nation attacks us we can send some teenagers to tell them to stop and to tackle their missiles.

It is unfortunate that we need force to combat force. The law already states that deadly force can only be used to combat deadly force. We cannot arbitrarily use deadly force. The test is what any reasonable person would do in a given situation.

It is unfortunate but true that an armed society is a polite society. Movies and television paint a picture of a Wild West that was not as wild as portrayed. The worst year for homicides in Dodge City was seven.

Regardless of what King and others think, we will always do what is necessary to defend ourselves and our loved ones. Ira L. Weiss San Francisco

Water-sewer rate freeze

Examiner editorial excerpts on initiatives published a day prior to the June 2 election included an analysis of the water and sewer rate freeze. Unfortunately, it contained some misconceptions. Although the rates freeze initiative was subsequently passed by the electorate, your editorial needs to be addressed.

I began working on the water / sewer rate freeze issue over two years ago and I take issue with your description of our group as an "outraged citizenry." Your description denotes hysteria, which is not accurate. Our motivation was our confidence that with the knowledge we amassed we could improve city government - that with a reasonable initiative we could help reform a wayward bureaucracy.

Your editorial stated, "What's really behind the initiative measure is a dispute about how The City should allocate profits from sales of power from Hetch Hetchy." In fact, the $500 million or so that has been transferred to the general fund over the past 22 years is only a part of the problem we have evidenced to the general public.

Notwithstanding poor management, negligence and irresponsible budgetary policy and practice, there is a need to implement honesty and efficiency back into the system. Rich Bodisco San Francisco

Anti-227 options

The opponents of Proposition 227 - approved by California voters on June 2 to put severe limits on public bilingual education - have two options:

* Individually or as a group to pay for their children's education in the language of their choice.

* Take advantage of educational opportunities in their countries of origin.

I can think of no place where it's required that children be taught in a language other than the language of that country. Dick Christian San Francisco

Riding rails to SFO

Regarding Travel Editor John Flinn's column about using BART and SamTrans to reach San Francisco International Airport ( "Take BART to Colma and a bus to SFO," Travel section, May 3): We agree when Flinn says "it's a pretty good way to get to SFO." We think it's only going to get better.

Four years from now, when the BART extension to the airport is complete, Flinn's trip will be even faster and easier. From San Francisco, BART trains will be running direct to the airport four to five times an hour. From downtown San Francisco, travel time to the airport will be 30 minutes or less. And upon exiting BART at the airport, at least half of all air travelers will be within a five-minute walk of their airline ticket counters.

We can accommodate air travelers and their luggage because the demand for airport service occurs at different times of day from the demand for commuter service. Most flight arrivals and departures at SFO occur between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. and on weekends.

Considering how our freeways are growing ever more congested, BART may become the preferred mode of transport to the airport, not just for some of us, but for a lot of us. Thomas E. Margro General manager, BART Oakland&lt;